Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Banaszak

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Banaszak[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sourcing on this article is way below the very minimum level to meet the general notability guidelines John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an interesting case. He clearly meets WP:NMMA with 5 top tier fights with Bellator when it was a top tier MMA organization. On the other hand, my search didn't find what I believe to be the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. I found lots of what I'd call routine sports reporting and listings in databases, but that doesn't prove notability. WP:NSPORT says meeting an SNG carries the "presumption" of notability, but it's not a guarantee. That's a factor in this case since we're not talking about someone whose notability claims are from decades before the internet, but rather someone who met the SNG in 2015. Perhaps others can show significant coverage. Papaursa (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lacking the in-depth reliable sources that are needed for notability. Which is odd considering his career and it being fairly recent, but whatever. There's no point in having a badly referenced article. Especially since it can be recreated when or if the sources are good enough for it to be. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.